The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
If you’ve opened a newspaper over the past couple of weeks you couldn’t have failed to miss the story of the extradition of businessman Ian Norris.
International law firm White & Case lost its long running battle with the US Department of Justice to spare its client Norris from extradition to the US.
The court, chaired by Supreme Court president Lord Phillips, ruled unanimously that Norris, the retired chief executive of Morgan Crucible, should face charges related to the obstruction of justice in the US.
The court rejected the argument that to extradite the 67-year-old would be an infringement of his human rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act - the right to family life in the UK, where his wife is based (see story).
Elsewhere, Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) is advising the administrators of the Reader’s Digest Association (RDA), with the company going into administration after failing to reach an agreement over the funding of its pension scheme.
The survival of RDA had hinged on whether it could secure funding for the £125m deficit on its pension fund. The decision by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) not to sanction a funding deal struck between the scheme’s trustees and the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has been seen as the catalyst for RDA going into administration (read full article).
Meanwhile, a religious symbol was brought into question at British Airways (BA).
This was after Devereux Chambers’ Ingrid Simler successfully acted for the airline company in defence of an indirect discrimination claim brought by an employee who was refused permission to wear a cross visibly at work.
Sitting in the Court of Appeal Lord Justices Sedley and Carnwath and Lady Justice Smith upheld an earlier ruling that BA had not discriminated on the grounds of religion because the airline could justify its actions.
Sedley LJ ruled that, for the claimant Naida Eweida, the wearing of a cross was a “person preference”.
The court also noted that the airline’s dress code had been in place for seven years and that the claimant had not complained before (read more).